It
is becoming more evident every day that the presidential race in 2004
will be a match-up between John Kerry and George W. Bush. Ralph Nader is
still toying with the idea of running although he is getting lots of
discouragement from Democrats and even Green Party members. As a former
Green Party activist who worked in the Nader campaign in Michigan in
2000, I, too, would discourage him from mounting an independent run for
the Presidency in 2004. While Nader's efforts in 2000 could be seen as
an outgrowth of the struggles for global justice and hoped for reforms
in the US political system, these are less evident now in an age of
revanchist US imperialism abroad and political repression at home.
Moreover, what constitutes the historical alternative in 2004 is a
question which, so far, very few on the left have yet to address.

Unlike any other presidential election in our
lifetime, a right-wing dominated Republican Party will go into the 2004
election with a majority in the House and Senate. Moreover, they will,
most likely, keep those majorities, especially since they have
assiduously been gerrymandering Congressional districts (in places like
Pennsylvania and Texas) to guarantee their control in the House. In
addition, it's also likely that Republicans may pick up some seats in
the Senate, especially from Southern states where Democrats like
Hollings, Edwards, and Graham have relinquished their incumbency. To
neglect this historically significant moment of Republican congressional
majorities is to blind oneself, either out of moral myopia, political
obtuseness, or sectarian stupidity.

Those who wish to promote a third party alternative
from the top-down, i.e, running an independent or Green Party candidate
for the presidency, are neglecting the continuing structural impediments
against third parties, including lack of proportional and preferential
voting. In addition, electoral reforms necessary for any meaningful
political change are still not in place. This means abolition of the
Electoral College and enfranchisement of millions of people (a large
proportion of which are black men) who are deemed ineligible to vote
because of a prison record.

If the aforementioned political realities aren't bad
enough for prospects for the 2004 presidential election, the focus on
the Democratic candidate, as either savior or fraud, is also
distressing. When critics of John Kerry in journals and websites begin
to parrot the smear campaigns of right- wing columnists, such as David
Brooks, there is something deeply amiss. Of course, Kerry should be
challenged on his voting record and influence-peddling, but please spare
us distorting the record and belaboring the obvious. If you think that
Kerry was an inauthentic participant in the Vietnam Veterans Against the
War, go back and read
his moving testimony in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations on April 23, 1971. Although Kerry has distanced himself from
that moment, we need not cast aspersions on his anti-war activities,
especially since the Republican smear-machine is already labeling him as
unpatriotic and "weak" on defense.

It is also astounding that progressives manage to
selectively highlight Kerry's record without acknowledging the failures
of the Democratic Party as a whole. For example, to criticize Kerry for
his vote on the Patriot Act is to ignore the fact that only one member
of the Senate, Russ Feingold, voted against it. If one believes that
Kerry would actually be no different on civil liberties issues than John
Ashcroft and the Bush Administration, point to substantive evidence.
Furthermore, to overlook his high ratings by NARAL, environmental, and
other liberal organizations is to neglect the positives and accentuate
the very real negatives in his record.

Most bemusing, however, is those who claim that
Kerry's influence-peddling deserves special criticism as if the whole
Washington establishment has clean hands on this matter. Such efforts to
cast Kerry as the worst of Washington bunch are somewhat reminiscent of
Claude Raines' mock-shocked response in Casablanca to gambling at
Rick's. Furthermore, why should it be such a surprise that someone who
can raise this kind of money is the Democratic front- runner for
president? C'mon, did anyone really believe that Dennis Kucinich would
emerge as the Democratic presidential nominee? Finally, regrets about
the demise of supposed insurgent candidate, Howard Dean, a Vermont
centrist who tilted left on the war in Iraq to mobilize support, are
also suspect, especially when one considers his record and the rest of
those Democratic "outsiders" like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Let's face it, our task is not to bemoan the fact
that the Democratic Party and its 2004 presumptive presidential
candidate, John Kerry, are lacking in left credentials. Our historic
responsibility is to defeat Bush and turn back the advances of the
right. In order to do this, we needn't immerse ourselves in the
Democratic Party or wait passively for the election to cast our votes.
First and foremost, we need to continue to delegitimize the Bush
Administration on every front. We should renew and expand the teach-ins
and demonstrations against the war on Iraq. We should join with women
and people of color to mobilize in whatever campaigns in which they are
engaged, from pro-choice marches and rallies to supporting the southern
California food workers.

Given our limited resources and the frightful
potential of a second Bush term, we should not be expending our
intellectual or activist capital (excuse the expression) on railing at
Kerry and the Democratic Party. It will be difficult in the face of the
media framing of politics in 2004 to think beyond the electoral arena,
but we must. And when we've completed our work in leafleting, debating,
mobilizing, etc. our fellow citizens around those crucial issues of
peace, human rights, and economic justice that are at the core of every
progressive agenda, we can make sure that any vote we and they cast will
be fairly and accurately accounted for. Whatever the outcome of the
presidential election in 2004 (and we should be well prepared for every
Republican dirty trick to steal this election as they did in 2000), we
will still have to be out on the streets the day after the vote to
struggle for our own rendezvous with history.

Fran Shor teaches
at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is an anti-war activist and
member of several human rights and peace and justice organizations.
E-mail: f.shor@wayne.edu